Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
(2.) WRIT petition is directed against award dated 9.12.2002 of Labour Court, U.P. Agra in Adjudication Case No. 83 of 1997 where by it has held that since termination of workman amounts to retrenchment and has been made in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here in after referred as '1947 Act'), respondent No. 3 (the workman) is entitled for reinstatement with effect from 23.5.1995 with full back wages. Facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute borrowed from the pleadings are as under: Respondent No. 3 Chhote Lal raised an industrial dispute alleging that he was wrongly terminated by petitioner employer on 23.5.1995. Considering it an industrial dispute, the reference was made by Notification dated 10.7.1997 in purported exercise of power under Section 4 K of 1947 Act to the following effect: JUDGEMENT_55_ADJ9_2011Image1.jpg
(3.) THE aforesaid reference was made for adjudication of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3 workman filed written statement alleging that he was engaged as 'Mali' in Zila Panchayat, Mathura on 1.1.1993 and was paid wages @ Rs. 1050/- per month. He was terminated by the Chairman, Zila Panchayat on 23rd of May, 1995 without following procedure prescribed under Section 6 N of 1947 Act and therefore the termination is illegal. Petitioners contested the reference alleging that respondent No. 3 was actually engaged as daily wage muster roll employee and never worked as 'Mali'. He was engaged as and when there was a requirement, by the concerned Junior Engineer. The Labour Court vide award dated 9.12.2002 (published on 26.5.2003) held that termination of workman was illegal since he had worked for more than 240 days in a year and therefore termination is in violation of Section 6N of 1947 Act, it is illegal. The Labour Court directed for reinstatement with full back wages.;